Implementing SW Toolbox in multi-user environment, best practice?

I have been considering implementing toolbox in a multi-user
environment so that we will have a central toolbox database and I was
hoping to get some feedback from those who have already attempted this.
What are the pit falls, I am sure there are plenty. Did you let the
database create multiple configurations within each document or did you
set it up so that each fastener size was created in its own part file?
Are there problems when trying to upgrade to new releases? Did anybody
just give up and create there own hardware library?

TIA,

Sam

 

You mean other than the obvious "don't" recommendation? In order to
have Toolbox data that is not guaranteed to blow up on you someday, you
have to use the "copy parts" setting. This is unfortunate, since
configurations are great for other things. That or you could just
create all configs of everything you use, and then make sure any time
you share data, they use YOUR toolbox data.

Toolbox is a timebomb for your designs. If you use it, you will get
burned eventually.

 

Matt:

I'm a litlle scared. Are you saying that if bolts, nuts & what not
from the Toolbox are all pulled from a single machine, sooner or later
things will go south? But that I can breathe a sigh of relief if I
copy the parts to my local machine (or at least from the Toolbox
directory structure to the director structure of my assembly)?

That would make sense, and since I'm now orking with a *copy* of the
hardware, I can spcify material, activate the weight calc, etc. so tha
it all comes out in my BOM.

Thanks,

Tom

 

My best advice is not to use toobox. It's a nightmare of a product and
poorly designed. It will cost you countless hours of wasted time and
effort.

Create your own component library using tables and it will work much better.
You can add all your part numbers and descriptions at the same time.

 

What I'm saying is that if you use configurations and share data with
somone not linked to your Toolbox, there will be trouble. Specifically
you won't have all the same configs created, so you'll get the "huge
screws" syndrome, common to toolbox users.

Even if you solve that problem by using "copy parts" instead of
configurations, you then have the problem of custom property info like
material or custom part numbers, which is a very manual process for
Toolbox users. Funny thing for such an automated product.

Oh, and if you start using a TB library with configs, don't switch to
copy parts. Also be careful of custom standards. I've seen some bad
bugs and speed issues when you start doing that.

Read the 11 page tirade on my website about Toolbox.

You're better off buying some non-intelligent library using design
tables which at least gives you some control.

 

Thanks, Matt & abc.

Ya see, the problem is, we're deep into SW, having jumped from AutoCAD
last year. Two of our young guys had used it quite a bit in college.
Trouble is, there's a huge, huge difference between what you'd do in
college and what you'd do in a real manufacturing effort. In college,
the big issue is to get things ready for ComosWorks, or create
realtively simple assemblies and drawings; revision control is not an
issue.

So we have this huge assembly that uses all Toolbox fasteners and such;
most of the BOM is filled in "By hand," and all these guys are worried
about is that, at the end of it all, the paper looks okay. Proper use
of the software, data structure, recoverability and revison control are
"crushed in the rush."

So here I am, the senior guy, training myself, and trying to figure out
how to get a set of part and assembly files that will maintain it's
integrity. I must admit, the Toolbox had me suspcious.

What SHOULD be done- if you insert a fastener or other Toolbox
component, that part SHOULD BE copied into the file structure of the
assembly. That way, if you have to do anything to it, you can.
Further, it would help with general portability.

At least I think. I don't like the idea of an assembly pulling parts
from all God-knows-where. It's neater & easier for me if every part in
an assembly in in the directory tree beneath the top-level assembly.
That's my 2 cents.

Matt, where's your web site?

Tom

 

Depends on what your goal is, but in general, I think parts that are not
project-specific "should" be kept in a library folder on a network or in
a PDM system. Common shared parts without making duplicates.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mjlombard/

It's in the Rules of Thumb area

 

Thanks, Matt, I'll check it out.

Ok, my only real gripe about "pulling parts from all God-knows-where"
is that, for the fledgling BOM system I'm setting up, you can't enter a
"Description" for the toolbox parts (normally - you know the drill) -
and thus my nice automatic BOM system doesn't have a decription for the
toolbox parts. Why couldn't they have just put (For ex.) "HEX NUT" in
the description field of these parts? I could set up traceability for
our own parts - and enter descriptions as well.

Just when I think I've got a system, you know?

But now to read about the Toolbox at Matt's site...

Thanks

 

Tom,

You might want to check out a new feature that was added in SW2005. It
allows you to edit the Toolbox part numbers, descriptions and comments in
Excel, then import back into Toolbox.

Here is an excerpt from the SW help file:

"You can add part numbers, part descriptions, and comments for each
configuration. You can edit the cells in the dialog box or click Export to
export the data to Microsoft Excel and edit the data in Excel. When you are
done in Excel and have saved the spreadsheet, click Import to import the
data into the database of Hole Wizard holes and Toolbox documents."

Do a search of "Edit Data" in SolidWorks Help.

It is also written up in the 2005 What's New pdf file. See chapter 13, page
38.

Hope this helps.

CG

 

Tom,

Check out Chapter 13, page 38 in the SW 2005 What's New Guide.

SolidWorks added the ability to assign Toolbox part numbers, descriptions
and comments using Excel.

Hope this helps.

CG

 

Sorry for the double post!

My newsreader said that my connection was broken before this message could
be posted. It lied!!

CG

 

I strongly advise you not to use toolbox, in a multi-user environment, or
anywhere else.
Even using copied parts is a real pain. design your own parts and store them
in the design lib, on a shared server.

Do not use configurations anywhere, they will really mess up your assemblies
after time.

Many assemblies, with toolbox parts in, that I started in sw2003, now fall
apart with sw2005.
Removing the toolbox parts, now allows the assemblies, to open without
errors.

We had a case this week of an assembly refusing to be re-checked into
Pdmworks, even crashing the user PC, many times. This was due to a toolbox
bolt, that has been in the assembly since Jan 2004!, even more amazing, is
that the assembly has also been in Pdmworks, since that time. Deleting the
said bolt, allowed the assembly to re-check-in, with no errors.

Toolbox is like a pair of smelly pants, with no way of washing them, throw
it away for good.

OT, why do we say a "pair" of pants, there is only one? lol

 

Another Toolbox fix, they've got a jugular open, and address it with a
bandaid. This is just manipulating the database. It is the database
that is the root of the problem. That information needs to be in the
part file, not some remote db. When you open an assembly and the
configurations don't exist, this DB doesn't do you a lick of good.

Library means Library. Toolbox is not a Library. It is a configurator.
It doesn't have what you want unless you tell it to build it. The
configurator is worthless. What value is it to wait until you need it
to tell it to make a size? Why don't all the sizes exist right up
front? The solution is WAY simpler than anything they have done
already. No one I know (including reseller techs) understands all the
obscure functions in Toolbox well enough to make it work the way a
library of parts works. Every time they add a fix, it is just another
obscure switch which should have been turned on when you first started
using your "library", but wasn't, so it's worthless or screws things up
worse.

Anyway, Toolbox is a design danger until they dumb it down. They keep
resisting doing something that will just create all of the sizes AS
INSTALLED for beginning users, rather than some complex combination of
obscure switches. Default settings should NEVER be the most dangerous
things you can do, but that's how Toolbox does it.

Remember that we're talking about a library, not multi-variable integral
calculus.

The main problem with getting it fixed is that they won't take away
programming resources from developing some politically motivated but
otherwise disfunctional MOLD CREATION feature, or one of a dozen other
pointless line items in a given release's "over 150 enhancements".

/rant

 

Matt,

Very well said. Your comments are spot on. I've worked at three different
company's that tried to implement toolbox using company standards and it
bombed out for all of them. Issue after issue. it's just a mess of a
concept to work with.

Best to bite the bullet now and create a library from scratch. It's too bad
it has to be that way.

 

OT, why do we say a "pair" of pants, there is only one? lol

Good one!

I've always wondered we it is:
A pair of panties, yet it is one bra?!?!?! Seems a little backwards to
me...

 

Matt,

I agree with your assessment about Toolbox being overly complex for the task
it is designed for. I was merely attempting to provide some useful
information for users that are using Toolbox.

A part library based on families of parts driven by design tables, or
standard configurations is my first choice as well.

Perhaps one of the API gurus that visit this group could write a macro that
would build a standalone (design table or config based) part library from
the Toolbox master parts and database tables. Beyond my API capabilities
unfortunately.

Best regards,

CG

 

At one time pants were two separate pieces. Leg coverings only, worn
in addition to something like a loin cloth.

Joe Dunfee

 

Thanks, all. I've got some investigating to do. And some Execdrin to
take...

THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE EASY!

Okay, I'll stop shouting now...of course, I never believed it, but I
hoped...